ArticleDrug safety2026
Communicating Drug Safety and Safe Use Conditions in Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Materials.
Article in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe FDA requires Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs for certain drugs with serious safety risks.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the structure, readability, and informational content of educational materials used in REMS programs to assess their potential to communicate drug-related risks and support safe use for 13 drugs with active REMS programs as of 2021.
methodsMaterials were collected from manufacturers' REMS websites between July 2021 and February 2022. From patient-, prescriber-, and pharmacist-facing documents-including fact sheets, guides, training materials, enrollment forms, and knowledge assessments-we extracted audience targeting; Flesch-Kincaid readability scores; estimated reading time; inclusion of REMS goals, drug indications, risks, and benefits; presence of comprehension assessments and reporting mechanisms. Results REMS packages contained a median of 14 documents (range 4-23) and 69 pages (range 8-414). All programs targeted prescribers and pharmacists, while 12 targeted patients. The median Flesch-Kincaid reading level was 10.5 for patient materials, 12.7 for prescriber materials, and 12.5 for pharmacist materials. Reading time varied, with patient-directed materials requiring a median of 18:08 min per drug. REMS-specific risks were discussed in a median 80% of documents, while drug indications were noted in a median of 33%, and efficacy or other safety concerns were often not included. Ten (77%) programs included comprehension assessments, and 10 (77%) provided patient enrollment forms. Adverse event reporting instructions were inconsistent. Conclusions REMS educational materials varied in length, complexity, and content, often exceeding recommended readability levels for patient-directed materials. Streamlining content and enhancing clarity and completeness may improve comprehension and support safe use of REMS-covered drugs.
Identifiers
42687097What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.